The increased frequency of terror attacks has exposed the vulnerability of the Indian state. The terrorists can strike at will, kill at will, and choose the time and venue of their attack. The Indian people feel helpless, insecure and angry. And yet my good friend Kapil Sibal has the audacity to argue that statistics show this government is not ‘soft’ in responding to terror. His argument is that stiff bail provisions and admissibility of confessions with requisite safeguards will violate the rule of law and be unreasonable.

The truth is that harsh bail provisions and admissibility of confessions exist in laws against ‘organised crime’ and drug peddlers. The UPA is comfortable with these laws but wants an easier regime for insurgents. Why should there be easy bail provisions against terrorists? If the provisions are misused, judicial review is always available. Terrorist crimes are not planned in public gaze. The fidayeen either get killed on the spot or manage to escape. The identity of the conspirators, the role played by each of them, will normally have no eyewitnesses. It is only insiders who can depose to these facts.

An argument is frequently made that an anti-terror law did not stop attacks on Parliament or Akshardham. An anti-terror law is not a substitute for preventive intelligence or effective policing. It only provides for effective investigation and trial. It enables the state to punish a terrorist. It is for this reason that the guilty in the Parliament attack case or the Akshardham case were punished.

... contd.